>>> WELCOME BACK. WE WILL TACKLE THE MOST
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IN AMERICA
RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW. DID THE PRESIDENT COMMIT AN
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE.
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE. I’M JOINED BY TWO OF THE
NATION’S TOP LEGAL EXPERTS TO
GET RIGHT INTO THAT QUESTION IN
THIS SEGMENT.
THIS SEGMENT. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE
HAS THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH.
AND THAT IS BASICALLY LIKE A
PROSECUTOR INDICTING SOMEONE.
FOR THE PRESIDENT IT’S A
DETERMINATION THERE IS ENOUGH
EVIDENCE OF A HIGH CRIME OR
MISDEMEANOR THAT THE SENATE WILL
HOLD A TRIAL, WHICH IS WHY
CONGRESS SAYS THIS PART IS EASY.
THEY POINT TO THE HUGE AMOUNT OF
EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP PLOTTED TO
ABUSE HIS POWER TO GET A FAVOR
FROM A FOREIGN LEADER, BRINGING
UP BIDEN AND HIS FAMILY ON THAT
INFAMOUS CALL SAYING WHATEVER
YOU CAN DO TO GET IT DONE,
PLEASE DO IT.
OTHER EVIDENCE INCLUDES
TESTIMONY FROM THE WOULD BE
DEFENDANT DONALD TRUMP WHO
CONFIRMED HE PUSHED UKRAINE TO
GO AFTER BIDEN AND HIS SON.
>> THE CONVERSATION I HAD WAS
LARGELY CONGRATULATORY, WAS
LARGELY CORRUPTION, ALL OF THE
CORRUPTION TAKING PLACE, WAS
LARGELY THE FACT THAT WE DON’T
WANT OUR PEOPLE LIKE VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON
CREATING THE CORRUPTION ALREADY
IN THE UKRAINE.
>> THE PRESIDENT CONFIRMING A
LOT THERE.
LOT THERE. BUT DOES IT MEET THE
CONSTITUTION’S REQUIREMENT THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD ONLY BE
IMPEACHED ON THESE EGROUNDS,
TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
WE WELCOME FORMER FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR JOHN FLANRY.
HE ASSISTED IN DEMOCRATS IN THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT DEBATE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY DAVID
RIVKEN WHO SERVED IN THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE AND HAS
REPRESENTED THE 26 STATES THAT
CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF OB OBAMA’S AFFORDABLE CARE AC
>> NICE TO BE HERE, ARI.
>> GREAT TO HAVE YOU.
I WANT TO SAY FOR VIEWERS TO
UNDERSTAND, WE WILL BEGIN WITH
EACH OF YOU GETTING 60 SECONDS
TO MAKE YOUR CONCISE OPENING
ARGUMENTS, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE
THE SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE.
MR. FLANRY BEGIN.
>> THANK YOU.
THE ORIGINAL FOUNDERS OF THE
NATION WERE VERY CONCERNED WITH
A SINGLE EXECUTIVE THERE MUST BE
SOME WAY TO CURB HIS POWER AND
INFLUENCE.
INFLUENCE. MADISON THOUGHT WE HAD TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT TEARYTYRANNY.
THE QUESTION IS OF THE CRIMES
THEY ENUMERATED WHAT ONES COULD
WE SAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED HERE?
I SUGGEST THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE
ACT IS ONE IN WHICH WE HAVE AN E
EMOLUMENT.
EMOLUMENT. WE HAVE BRIBERY.
I’M WITHHOLDING THIS MONEY THAT
YOU NEED FOR YOUR NATION.
BUT FIRST I WANT YOU TO DO
SOMETHING FOR ME AND GIVE ME THE
DIRT SO I CAN GET E-RE-ELECTED.
THERE IS THE QUESTION OF
OBSTRUCTION, NOT JUST
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION ON A
FALSE EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE THINKS
SHOULD PERMIT HIM TO DO IT.
SO I ALSO THINK THAT ANY
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE IN THE
FORM OF A CONSPIRACY.
THAT IS THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE
PRESIDENT, THE SECRETARY OF
STATE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BECAUSE ALL WERE INVOLVED.
>> COUNSELOR, THANK YOU.
A TIGHT ONE MINUTE ON THE
ARGUMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT.
DAVID, YOUR RESPONSE?
>> ARI, GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.
MY 92-YEAR-OLD AUNT IS A BIG
FAN, SO I APPRECIATE A CHANCE TO
TALK --
TALK -- >> SHOUT OUT TO YOUR AUNT.
>> I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO
TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.
LET’S PRETEND WE’RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT DONALD TRUMP.
REALLY ONLY INTERESTED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
CONSTITUTION. BOTH ARE FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG
ABOUT THE PLACE OF IMPEACHMENT
ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PERMANENT.
THE FRAMERS WERE DEEPLY
AMBIVALENT ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.
THEY DEBATED FOR QUITE SOME TIME
THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT HAVING
ANY IMPEACHMENT POWER IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
CONSTITUTION. THEY DEBATED WHO COULD BE
TRUSTED WITH EXERCISING THIS
POWER.
POWER. THEY WANTED TO GIVE IT FIRST TO
THE STATE LEGISLATORS.
BUT THEY WERE TREMENDOUSLY
CONCERNED ABOUT ABUSE.
BY THE WAY, I’M PRETTY SICK AND
TIRED HEARING THAT ABUSES OF
EXECUTIVE POWER WAS THE ONLY
THING THAT ANIMATED THE FRAMERS
BECAUSE THEY WERE MUCH MORE
CONCERNED ABOUT ABUSES OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER.
LEGISLATIVE POWER. THEY BELIEVED TO BE AS STRONG AS
BRANCH.
BRANCH. THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED
PRECISELY BECAUSE OF A MALLEABLE
DEFINITION OF HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR IS PRETTY MUCH
WHATEVER AL SAYS IT IS.
WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE?
LET’S FORGET THIS IS DONALD
TRUMP.
TRUMP. LET’S TAKE SERIOUSLY THE
PROPOSITION THAT --
>> AND COUNSELOR, YOU’RE AT
TIME.
TIME. >> LET’S TAKE THE PROPOSITION HE
WAS INTERESTED IN INVESTIGATING
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND YOU
COULD NOT POSSIBLY GET INTO
THIS.
THIS. >> YOU HAVE TO FINISH.
YOU HAVE ONE SENTENCE TO FINISH.
YOU’RE OVER TIME.
>> THAT IS PERFECTLY TIME.
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING
HIM FOR PRESIDENTIAL POWER.
>> YOU WERE NEVER GOOD WITH
RULES.
RULES. >> BOTH OF YOU HAVE LAID OUT AT
THE HIGHEST AT ALTITUDE WHY THIS
IS SO IMPORTANT.
JOHN, LET’S GET INTO IT.
YOU CAN BUILD ON THE POINTS YOU
MADE OR RESPOND TO WHAT DAVID
SAID.
SAID. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
>> YOU CAN’T IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT FOR FOREIGN POLICY.
>> THIS WAS ABOUT PERSONAL
INTEREST.
INTEREST. THIS WAS ABOUT HIS ELECTION.
THIS WAS ABOUT HAVING DIRT ON
WHAT APPEARED TO BE ONE OF HIS
PRINCIPAL OPPONENTS IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION.
GENERAL ELECTION. IT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
TALKING ABOUT POLICY AND TALKING
ABOUT WHAT FAVORS HIM IN AN
ELECTION.
ELECTION. AND HE APPARENTLY STARTED THIS
IN ABOUT MAY WITH HIS LIEUTENANT
RUDY GIULIANI.
RUDY GIULIANI. BUT LET ME SAY SOMETHING ELSE.
THE MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDING
FATHERS WHO WERE DECIDING WHAT
TO DO, THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED
GIVEN THAT THEY HAD A KING.
AND THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED
THAT THEY NOT REPRODUCE HERE
WITHOUT SUCH ROYALTY THE SAME
ERROR THAT THEY THOUGHT
CAPTIVATED GREAT BRITAIN.
>> JOHN, LET ME PRESS YOU ON
WHAT EVIDENTIARY POINT AND BRING
IN DAVID.
IN DAVID. YOU HAVE LAID OUT YOUR ARGUMENT.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO
WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND SAY RIGHT
NOW THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE
IS TWO ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUALS AS
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. >> IT’S NOT.
>> AND THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS
WHICH MANY OF HIS CRITICS SAY
CARRY NO WEIGHT ANYWAY?
IS THAT ENOUGH TO REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT? >> I DISAGREE WITH.
I THINK WE HAVE EVIDENCE
INDEPENDENT OF WHAT STARTED
THIS, WHICH WAS THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
WHISTLEBLOWER. WHAT WE HAVE IS THE STATEMENT IN
THE CONVERSATION, THE READ-OUT
THAT TELLS US THAT IN RESPONSE
TO THE REMARK BY THE PRESIDENT
OF UKRAINE, WE ARE ALMOST READY
TO BUY MORE JAVELINS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR,
THOUGH.
THOUGH. WE HAVE RUDY GOING ON THE AIR
EXPLAINING ALL THIS.
THEN WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT DOING
ADDITIONAL SIMILAR ACTS.
WE FIND OUT HE’S CALLED
AUSTRALIA AND HE’S ASKED CHINA
TO HELP HIM ON THIS.
SO THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES IN
WHICH RARELY YOU GET THE PERSON
ADMITTING TO IT AND THE ENTIRE
NATION KNOWS ABOUT IT.
>> I APPRECIATE A LITTLE BIT OF
EQUAL TIME.
EQUAL TIME. I’M NOT INTERESTING IN DEBATING
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWERS.
WHISTLEBLOWERS. LET’S ASSUME THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF
TIME DELAYED THE DELIVERY OF AID
BECAUSE HE SINCERELY BELIEVED
THERE WAS A GENUINE CORRUPTION
THAT TOOK PLACE IN UKRAINE.
NOT JUST CORRUPTION IN THE SENSE
OF WHAT JOE BIDEN TOLD HIM TO DO
BUT CORRUPTION IN A SENSE THAT
YOU HAD EFFORTS TO INVOLVE
UKRAINE, ITALY, AUSTRALIA,
BRITAIN AND A NUMBER OF OTHER
FOREIGN COUNTRIES INTO DIGGING
DIRT ON THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP ON
MR. MANAFORT.
MR. MANAFORT. YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT
THERE IS SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
THAT SUGGESTS THAT.
>> DID HE NEED THAT TO WIN?
>> AND HIS GOAL --
>> DAVID, DO YOU NEED THAT TO BE
TRUE TO WIN?
>> NO.
>> NO. THAT’S WHY YOU INVESTIGATE.
MY POINT IS VERY SIMPLE.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A
SHALL WE SAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE VIEWERS, A STRONG
PROBABILITY THAT THAT WAS THE
CASE AND THE ULTIMATE IRONY HERE
IS THAT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, A NUMBER OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION STAND ACCUSED
CREDIBLY IN ENGAGING IN EXACTLY
THE SAME CONDUCT.
WITHHOLDING A BILLION DOLLARS
FROM UKRAINE, SEEKING TO GET
UKRAINE TO, IT IS
IRONIC TO ME THAT NOBODY IS
INTERESTED IN LOOKING INTO
THAT --
THAT -- >> WOW.
>> WOW. >> I’M SURPRISED YOU MAKE THAT
ARGUMENT.
ARGUMENT. AS YOU KNOW, THAT’S NOT AN
ARGUMENT OF LEGAL OR
CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE THAT’S THE PAST
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> NO, NO.
I NEED TO --
>> DAVID, I’M GOING TO FINISH
THE QUESTION AND THEN YOU GET TO
GET IN.
GET IN. THE ONLY REAL QUESTION HERE IS
THE EVIDENCE FACING THIS
PARTICULAR PERSON WHO MAY OR MAY
NOT BE IMPEACHED.
>> WITH RESPECT, THERE IS
CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENT FOR
IMPEACHING FORMER HOLDERS OF
OFFICE.
OFFICE. THE BEST EXAMPLE OF IT IS THE
IMPEACHMENT OF SECRETARY
BELLMAP, SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER
PRESIDENT GRANT, IMPEACHED BY
THE HOUSE AFTER HE RESIGNED.
>> YOU KNEW TONIGHT YOU WERE
INVITED TO DEBATE THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE.
PARTICULAR ISSUE. >> PRECISELY GIVEN THE FRAMERS’
CONCERN, HAVING IMPEACHMENT
FOCUSSED SOLELY ON THIS
PARTICULAR PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF
A CONDUCT THAT IS AT BEST
IDENTICAL TO THE CONDUCT OF A
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION IS THE
HIGHEST FORM OF WEAPONIZATION
AND POLLICIZATION OF IMPEACHMENT
POWER THAT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
DANGEROUS.
DANGEROUS. >> I SUPPOSE ALL REPUBLICANS
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FOCUS
BECAUSE THEY CAN’T ADD ANYTHING
TO SAY TO THE FACTS THAT ARE
ACTUALLY OUT THERE THAT RELATE
TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN, SHOULD
AND, I THINK, MUST IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. SO WE TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING
ELSE.
ELSE. BUT IN THAT ANSWER THAT I
THOUGHT WE WEREN’T GOING TO TALK
ABOUT TRUMP SPECIFICALLY, WE
TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO I GUESS THAT FITS THE
ORIGINAL PREMISE THAT DAVID HAS
CHOSEN.
CHOSEN. BUT HAVING DONE THAT, BASICALLY
WHAT HE’S SAYING IS WE HAVE A
RIGHT TO ASK ALL THESE PEOPLE TO
INVESTIGATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF
WHAT?
WHAT? HELPING THE PRESIDENT RUN FOR
RE-ELECTION, A VERY PERSONAL
GOAL, HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH
PUBLIC POLICY.
PUBLIC POLICY. THERE IS A HISTORY OF LOOKING AT
IMPEACHMENT AND SEEING IF THERE
WAS A GOOD FAITH REASON FOR ANY
ACT THAT A PRESIDENT
>> LET ME PLEA ONE PIECE OF
SOUND FROM THE PERSON IN
QUESTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO
HAS SPOKEN IN BROADWAYS ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT DAVID HAS
REFERRED TO.
REFERRED TO. WHICH IS HE DOES HAVE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION THESE POWERS.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TURN TO THE
OTHER PART OF THIS DEBATE, THE
SENATE PART --
>> CAN I JUST MAKE ONE POINT?
>> I’M GOING TO GO BACK TO YOU,
FIRST FOLLOW MY LEAD.
I’M GOING TO PLAY THE PRESIDENT
TALKING ABOUT HIS ARTICLE II
POWERS, TAKE A LISTEN.
>> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE II
WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO
WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.
BUT I DON’T EVEN TALK ABOUT
THAT.
THAT. LOOK, ARTICLE II.
I WOULD BE ALLOWED TO FIRE
ROBERT MUELLER.
ROBERT MUELLER. MORE IMPORTANTLY, ARTICLE II
ALLOWS ME TO DO WHATEVER I WANT.
>> THAT’S THE WAY THE PRESIDENT
SEES IT.
SEES IT. TURNING TO DAVID, SO EVERYONE
UNDERSTANDS, TO THE SECOND PART
OF THIS, WHICH IS IF THE HOUSE
IMPEACHES, SHOULD THE SENATE
ACTUALLY CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP
AND VOTE TO CONVICT AND
POTENTIALLY REMOVE HIM FROM
OFFICE, WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED
IN AMERICAN HISTORY, FOR WHICH
JOHN’S SIDE OF THE DEBATE IS A
HARD AND HIGH BAR?
DAVID, THEN JOHN.
>> MY POINT ADVICE SIMPLE.
THE SENATE SHOULD NOT CONVICT,
THE HOUSE SHOULD NOT IMPEACH.
LET ME EXPLAIN.
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A PERFECTLY
LEGITIMATE USE OF PRESIDENTIAL
POWER.
POWER. NAMELY, TO PUSH A RECIPIENT OF
AMERICAN AID TO INVESTIGATE PAST
CORRUPTIVE ACT TO ENSURE THAT
THEY DON’T OCCUR.
IRONICALLY TO ENSURE UKRAINE
DOESN’T INTERFERE IN AMERICAN
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AGAIN.
JOHN’S BEEF AND DEMOCRATS’ BEEF
IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BENEFITS
FROM IT POLITICALLY.
LET’S STIPULATE THAT HE PROBABLY
DOES.
DOES. LET ME ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION.
CAN YOU THINK ABOUT ANY FOREIGN
POLICY ACTION THAT DOES NOT
BRING SOME BENEFITS TO A SITTING
PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT? FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU CALL
CHAIRMAN KIM TOMORROW, GIVE ME A
GOOD DEAL ON NUCLEARIZATION OF
KOREA, HE CALLS CHAIRMAN XI, WHY
DON’T YOU FINALLY GIVE ME A GOOD
DEAL THAT SHOWS WHAT A GREAT
FOREIGN POLICY LEADER I AM?
BENEFITS AND ENHANCING HIS
POLITICAL LUSTER.
POLITICAL LUSTER. DO YOU LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE YOU
THINK AMERICAN POLITICIANS OR
POLITICIANS ANYWHERE IN THE
WORLD HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY
APOLITICAL?
APOLITICAL? IF YOU NEVER HEARD THE
EXPRESSION, GOOD POLICY IS GOOD
POLITICS?
POLITICS? WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE HERE?
>> A BARRAGE OF RHETORICAL
QUESTIONS, JOHN FLANERY --
>> GOOD ONES.
>> LET ME GET THIS ON THE
RECORD.
RECORD. DAVID THINKS HIS QUESTIONS ARE
GOOD.
GOOD. I BET JOHN THINKS HIS QUESTIONS
ARE GOOD.
ARE GOOD. MANY OF OUR GUESTS THINK THEIR
OWN IDEAS ARE GREAT BUT WE DO
TOO, WE APPRECIATE THE
EXPERTISE.
EXPERTISE. JOHN ACTION YOUR RESPONSE?
>> I DON’T THINK I’VE ASKED ANY
QUESTIONS YET.
QUESTIONS YET. I AM A STUDENT OF THE THEATER OF
THE ABSURD AND I LOVE LISTENING
TO QUESTIONS THAT HAVE
ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON WHAT
WE’RE DOING.
WE’RE DOING. I THINK THERE IS A BIG
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING PEACE
THROUGHOUT UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
AND WITH THE EU.
BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS WAS
ABOUT.
ABOUT. THIS WAS ABOUT GETTING A
SPECIFIC PERSON INVESTIGATED TO
HELP THE PRESIDENT IN A
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONGOING
AFTER HE HAD READ THE POLLS,
PERIOD.
PERIOD. NO OTHER QUESTION ABOUT IT.
AS FOR GOING TO THE SENATE, I
THINK, YES, YOU’RE RIGHT, THERE
IS A HIGH BAR.
BECAUSE OF HOW WE COUNT.
WE NEED 20 REPUBLICANS.
BUT ARE WE SAYING THAT THERE IS
NO FACT THAT WON’T CONCERN THEM?
ARE WE SAYING THAT THEY WON’T BE
MOVED BY THIS CONSPIRACY?
WE’RE TOLD THAT AS MANY AS 30
ARE UPSET WITH THIS PRESIDENT.
THEY SAW WHAT THEY DID TO THE
SENATOR FROM UTAH.
IS THIS THE KIND OF PRESIDENT
THEY WANT WHO’S DONE THIS
MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS NOT IN THE
HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
ARE THEY GOING TO BE SO
CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL
INCONVENIENCE OF STANDING UP FOR
WHAT’S RIGHT AT THE RISK OF
BEING RE-ELECTED?
BEING RE-ELECTED? ARE THEY GOING TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE NATION OVER THEIR OWN
PERSONAL INTEREST?
PERSONAL INTEREST? >> TWO TENACIOUS LAWYERS WHO
HAVE BEEN GIVEN MORE TIME THAN
ANY OTHER SEGMENT WE’VE DONE